Obama was off his game. I felt that Romney's flip-flopped a lot and the President didn't bite him back when he had the opportunity and kept it entirely too "professorial" which is a problem he's had in past debates, espc during the primary season in 2008. Romney tried his best to set himself in the center and was successful in doing so, but theres a lot he still has to overcome. My friends on the left still won't vote for Romney and my friends on the right still won't vote for Obama.

If forced to pick a winner, Romney won, but based on the way he carried himself more than actual substance. Romney still has a problem with delivering plans in a coherent manner or at all even.

I don't think that anyone who planned on voting for one or the other will change their minds after this. I don't see it moving the dial a lot. A debate hasn't won or lost the election for anyone in a long time, but I imagine the polls will tighten a bit more in the next few days. I still think Romney needs something gamechanging to beat an incumbent and a debate isn't that. Just as it wasn't for Kerry in 2004.

Jim Lehrer was a terrible moderator as well. It was also an incredibly boring debate.

Unfortunately, neither will opt for openness. Why? Because neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney is all that excited about getting dragged into a real debate. And, thanks to the way in which the big parties have rigged the process, neither Obama nor Romney will have to worry about any interesting questions, unexpected issues or pointed challenges interrupting their joint appearance.

Aside from seeing more than two candidates involved in the debates, I would like to actually see the candidates be able to ask each other questions and put each other on the spot so we can see how much they actually know what they're talking about without being able to rehearse their answers.

0

"Swim against the tide, don't follow the group, stay away from the majority, seek out the fresh and new, stay away from the poseurs, and don't be a barnacle. Be original, be different, be passionate, be selfless and be free. Be a hockey fan."
--John Buccigross

Aside from seeing more than two candidates involved in the debates, I would like to actually see the candidates be able to ask each other questions and put each other on the spot so we can see how much they actually know what they're talking about without being able to rehearse their answers.

That certainly would be entertaining in a very uncomfortable kind of way.

FWIW, I find debates as useless as conventions. I stopped watching them a long time ago. It was ver nice seeing the Yanks close out the Red Sox season with a good healthy thumping. South Park was a little disappointing.

0

I collect spores, molds and fungus.Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

I watched even though I told myself I wasn't, it was basically as I thought it would be two infomercials intertwined. I thought Lehrer did a terrible job of keeping both candidates to short concise answers. I understand that he was trying to be respectful but I really wish "they" (they being who ever organized the debates) would address it because it's always like this. Something like an audible beep at 2 minutes with a mic cut off 30s after that. It would be abrupt once or twice but after that the candidates would get the gist.

Optically, Romney was better. but really I'm waiting for the fact checkers to come out and give their assessment to determine who was more accurate, which is all I really care about.

It's very obvious Romney 'won' the debate. That doesn't mean he'll win the election or that he has more 'truthiness'.

If Obama was trying to just ride it out, to give Romney nothing... he lost the short term battle. But there were no absolute blunders either that Romney can run with. The sentiment that Romney was channeling his inner-Reagen will die down and Obama will be just fine.

90% or more are decided already and you honestly won't sway them barring a disaster... The debates just stir up the party to get out the vote, while trying to influence the ~10% undecided voters.

My horse is Romney in this race, and I'm quite sure he won't win. I'll still go out to vote and hope for the best. But this is still Obama's presidency to lose. He hasn't done anything to upset the masses to lose the race as a sitting president - despite the claims conservatives are making about his (harmful) policies.

It's very obvious Romney 'won' the debate. That doesn't mean he'll win the election or that he has more 'truthiness'.

If Obama was trying to just ride it out, to give Romney nothing... he lost the short term battle. But there were no absolute blunders either that Romney can run with. The sentiment that Romney was channeling his inner-Reagen will die down and Obama will be just fine.

90% or more are decided already and you honestly won't sway them barring a disaster... The debates just stir up the party to get out the vote, while trying to influence the ~10% undecided voters.

My horse is Romney in this race, and I'm quite sure he won't win. I'll still go out to vote and hope for the best. But this is still Obama's presidency to lose. He hasn't done anything to upset the masses to lose the race as a sitting president - despite the claims conservatives are making about his (harmful) policies.

Thanks for attempting to bring it back to civil.

Also the whining about the media is just silly at this point. The media as an entity (not individuals) WANT a close race. A close race brings stuff like 2000 when people were glued to their televisions during the recount debacle. A close race is good for business. They don't want to see either side pull away, even if some individuals on screen are clear on who they do want. The guys upstairs signing the paychecks and make programming decisions want to see one state deciding all.

This is 2004 in redux when Kerry clearly beat Bush in the debate. The polls tightened and the election was close, but the incumbent still won. Obama has two more debates to score "points". Its far from over, but Romney's margin for error is a lot smaller than Obama's at this point.

You changed the topic towards bashing Fox News and Paul Ryan when we are talking about the debate between Obama and Romney.

Maher was right. Obama really could have used that teleprompter last night.

*I* didn't even post that. How tight are your blinders on?

Anyway your original point wasn't that democrats were trying to change the subject, it was that they were whining and crying. So ATL's post might be proof of deflection (which is what everyone does all the time anyway) but not proof of your OP.

Also the whining about the media is just silly at this point. The media as an entity (not individuals) WANT a close race. A close race brings stuff like 2000 when people were glued to their televisions during the recount debacle. A close race is good for business. They don't want to see either side pull away, even if some individuals on screen are clear on who they do want. The guys upstairs signing the paychecks and make programming decisions want to see one state deciding all.

This is 2004 in redux when Kerry clearly beat Bush in the debate. The polls tightened and the election was close, but the incumbent still won. Obama has two more debates to score "points". Its far from over, but Romney's margin for error is a lot smaller than Obama's at this point.

When you consider polls naturally tighten up anyway towards election day, Obama was bound to come down from his post-convention highs, and a strong performance by Romney I agree we are going to see a shift. With so few undecided voters though I don't think it's going to make a difference. These debates should be held much earlier in the cycle.

Anyway your original point wasn't that democrats were trying to change the subject, it was that they were whining and crying. So ATL's post might be proof of deflection (which is what everyone does all the time anyway) but not proof of your OP.

You two both post the same canned liberal nonsense that it is hard to tell apart sometimes.

Deflection is another form of whining and crying because he cannot defend obamas performance last night.